POORAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana has convicted the accused - appellant Pooran son of Ram Karan, by caste Meena, resident of Naya Bas, Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar under its judgment dated 28th August 1990 under Section 302 I. P. C. and for the said offence sentenced the accused-appellant to imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid judgement, accused has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE case relates to the alleged murder of one Ram Swaroop. THE house of the accused-appellant is adjacent to the house of the deceased, rather the 'gwadi' is common. THE case of the prosecution is that on 16th September 1987, deceased Ram Swaroop was sleeping in the 'guwadi' all alone and other members of the house had gone to the nearby school to see some play which was being played there. It was at about 12. 00 or 1. 00 a. m. in the night intervening 15-16th September 1987 when Smt. Surji PW-1 and others are said to have returned after seeing the play, the accused is said to have been seen giving blows with an axe to the deceased Ram Swaroop who was then sleeping on his cot. Suresh, Ratiram and others reached there and they along with Baluram went to the police station and informed about the incident. When Baluram arrived at the spot, the said incident was narrated by Smt. Surji and others to him. Baluram lodged the FIR as aforesaid. It will be seen that the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is about 5 kms. THE report was lodged at about 6-7 a. m.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution tests on the testimony of the witnesses who have professed to be eye witnesses as well as on the recovery of the blood stained axe. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the story which has been stated by the witnesses in their statement in the court is different from one with which they came out of the FIR. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further contended that none of the witness was or could be the eye witness of the occurrence. In the FIR the prosecution had come out with a case that the accused was simply seen running away with an axe from the 'guwadi'. But in the statement in the court each of them said that they had seen the accused causing injuries with an axe to the deceased Ram Swaroop. Learned counsel further contended that the reliance can be placed on their statements so far as each of them has stated that they had witnessed the accused inflicting injuries on the deceased with anex.